Summary:
He added that greenery still exists there and raised questions about the petitioner’s background. However, in an affidavit to the NGT the department stated that it was part forest.Ferreira showed the court Google Earth images of 2013, 2014 and 2015 of where the project is coming up. The state government, he said, cannot override central laws, adding that ever since the petitioner Abhijit Dessai became panch member, a number of cases have been filed against him.Deep Shirodkar representing the chief secretary, principal chief conservator of forests, chief town planner and deputy town planner, said construction licences date to three and four years ago and told the court that in the pictures submitted to it, even in 2006 there were barren pockets in the area. The division bench comprising Justice Mahesh S Sonak and Justice Prithviraj Chavan , directed Abhijat and other respondents to reply by March 11.When the case came up for hearing senior advocate Carlos Ferreira, who appeared for the petitioner, told the court that the forest department, when asked for the status of the land, stated that it was not forest land. An application was made for a eco tourism project, he said.When justice Sonak asked him which government authority granted permission for the project and whether the PIL was challenging IPB’s in-principle approval, Ferreira replied that on the basis of the in-principle approval from IPB one could get all other permissions.Ferreira contended that an ordinance was issued to “help the project” wherein no other permission is required except construction licence..